Data and reporting for Target 2
Transparent and interoperable data help countries understand where restoration is taking place, assess progress and report consistently on headline indicator 2.1, Area under restoration.
Countries collect restoration information through national monitoring systems, sectoral databases, projects, programmes and reporting processes. These sources often use different definitions, classifications, formats and spatial scales. The Target 2 data approach aims to connect and harmonize available information while avoiding unnecessary duplication and maintaining national ownership.
What is reported for headline indicator 2.1?
Headline indicator 2.1 measures area under restoration. In accordance with the current metadata, areas can be counted when restoration activities are in progress or when activities have been completed and post-completion monitoring is continuing. Commitments or areas still in preparation are important for planning, but are not automatically counted as area under restoration.
Countries should use the current indicator metadata and reporting guidance to determine the applicable status, reference period, ecosystem classification, units and quality requirements.
Recommended disaggregation
- Ecosystem functional group, using the Global Ecosystem Typology (GET) or an equivalent national classification and crosswalk to the GET.
- Indigenous and traditional territories.
- Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.
- Type of restoration activity.
Additional project-level information can improve transparency and interpretation, including restoration objectives, activities, current and target ecosystem, tenure and governance context, lead entity, spatial location, monitoring indicators and implementation status. When information is available, the countries can also provide the total accumulated area under restoration disaggregated by year.
Why default data are provided
Default data are compiled from multiple available sources to provide countries with an initial and transparent overview of restoration information that may be relevant to Target 2 reporting.
They are intended to:
- Complement national monitoring systems and data collection.
- Reduce the time required to locate and compare information held in different platforms and reporting processes.
- Support data review, quality control and identification of gaps or possible overlaps.
- Improve consistency and interoperability across restoration-related datasets.
- Provide contextual information beyond a single area estimate.
NATIONAL OWNERSHIP
Default data do not replace national data, constitute an official country submission or remove the need for national review and validation.
What the default data include
The default dataset combines area-based estimates and contextual attributes available from restoration initiatives, projects, national systems and official reporting processes. Depending on the source, information may include:
- Reported or calculated area under restoration and spatial location.
- Current and target ecosystem type.
- Restoration objectives, activities and implementation status.
- Lead entity, tenure and governance context.
- Protected area, OECM, Indigenous or traditional territory attributes where available and appropriate.
- Project-level monitoring indicators and other quality or descriptive information.
Coverage and completeness vary by country, ecosystem and data source. Apparent gaps do not necessarily mean that restoration is not taking place; they may indicate that information has not yet been connected, standardized or made available.
Data sources and interoperability
Default data are compiled through an interoperability framework that aligns common parameters and enables information exchange among platforms and reporting processes. Sources can include:
- The FERM Registry and connected restoration platforms.
- Official global and thematic reporting processes, including forest, wetland and land-related datasets.
- National monitoring systems, databases and geospatial platforms where connections are available.
- Restoration initiatives, programmes and project-level datasets.
Data from different sources cannot always be added together. The same restoration area may appear in multiple systems, and tabular values may cover different periods, ecosystems or definitions. Geospatial information and harmonized attributes can help identify possible overlaps and reduce double counting, but national quality control remains essential.
Role of national focal points
CBD national focal points and the relevant national institutions play a central role in reviewing information and deciding how it should be used for reporting. The review process should be coordinated with technical agencies and data owners across relevant ecosystems and sectors.
Through the Target 2 data review workflow, national teams can:
- Visualize restoration locations and inspect associated attributes.
- Compare information from different sources and identify possible duplication or inconsistency.
- Carry out quality assurance and quality control.
- Select, aggregate or exclude information according to national methods and reporting decisions.
- Add or connect national data to complement available default information.
- Document assumptions, limitations and the provenance of reported values.
This process supports reporting that reflects national circumstances, data systems and institutional arrangements.
Suggested data review workflow
Step | Country action |
1. Identify national responsibilities | Confirm the focal point, technical agencies, data owners and review process. |
2. Compile national information | Bring together relevant tabular, geospatial and project-level data across ecosystem types. |
3. Review available default data | Compare sources, inspect attributes and identify gaps, overlaps and inconsistencies. |
4. Apply QA/QC and national methods | Check definitions, periods, status, location, ecosystem classifications and potential double counting. |
5. Decide what to use | Determine which data should be accounted for national reporting and how values will be aggregated or disaggregated. |
6. Report and document | Submit nationally approved information through the CBD reporting process and record methods, sources and limitations. |
7. Improve the system | Use lessons from reporting to strengthen national monitoring, interoperability and future data collection. |
Linkages with Global Biodiversity Framework online reporting tool
FERM and the default data workflow are being aligned with CBD online reporting processes so that countries can move more efficiently between data review and formal reporting. The intended workflow allows reviewed information to support pre-population where appropriate, while preserving the option for countries to adjust values or report directly from national systems.
Country-reported values can, subject to agreed technical arrangements and data governance, feed back into shared datasets and improve the global picture of restoration progress.
Principles for transparent data use
Principle | Application |
Country ownership | Countries decide which data are used and reported. |
Transparency | Sources, methods, assumptions and limitations should be documented. |
Interoperability | Common parameters and standards should make data easier to connect and reuse. |
Quality control | Data should be checked for relevance, completeness, consistency and possible duplication. |
Inclusiveness and rights | Data concerning Indigenous Peoples, local communities and territories should follow appropriate participation, consent, governance and protection arrangements. |
Continuous improvement | Data gaps should guide capacity development and improvements to national monitoring systems. |
Digital timeline
Create a horizontal interactive timeline showing: adoption of the GBF (2022); development of the Target 2 partnership and Road Map (2023 onward); Resource Guide and e-learning launch (2024); COP 16 monitoring framework updates and Target 2 Road Map recognition (2025); Road Map launch and regional dialogues (2025-2026); reporting and data review milestones (2026); future support for eighth national reports (2027-2028).